Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:53:05 -0800 | From | Kent Overstreet <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] bcache revert |
| |
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:42:18PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 08/31/2015 01:29 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:14:07PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>On 08/31/2015 01:00 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote: > >>>Linus, please pull; this reverts a patch from Jens that was committed without > >>>CCing be or being mailed out to any of the lists. Said patch wasn't in any way a > >>>functional change and is something that damn well should have been discussed. > >>> > >>>Jens - what the goddamn fuck!? You've never touched the bcache code until now, > >>>and when you finally get interested this is what you do!? > >>> > >>>While I am sympathetic to the arguments in favor of your patch, there _are_ some > >>>damn good reasons I did it the way I did. If you want to have that discussion, > >>>feel free to mail your patch out again after the revert. > >> > >>The patch was part of a larger series that I was working on, and I just > >>wanted to flush out that dependency. Christoph review and acked it, it was > >>by no means a sneaking in of a patch. > > > >I didn't see it until I went to rebase bcachefs onto 4.2 this morning. I triple > >checked; this patch is not in any mailing list archive. And you certainly didn't > >try to contact me. How is that _not_ sneaking it in? > > It's a simple cleanup patch, against a dormant driver. It was reviewed by > Christoph, which is as good as it gets. Yes, it should have been posted, but > it's not like we are talking about a rewrite or anything of that magnitude. > You're grossly overreacting. I would do it again.
Look, you've had your own periods as an unavailable maintainer so I wouldn't throw stones - and it's no secret that I'm still working on bcache.
Really, as long as you think it's ok to commit patches without CCing the mailing list _or_ the maintainer, then fuck you. I wouldn't do that to you and I don't know anyone else who would, so as long as that's your attitude about it there's really nothing to discuss.
| |